Biden: US will not send Ukraine rockets that can reach Russia

[yaesu]

Source: aljazeera

The United States will not send Ukraine rocket systems that can reach Russia, President Joe Biden said on Monday.

The US president’s comments followed reports that the Biden administration was preparing to send advanced long-range rocket systems to Kyiv for its fight against Russia.

CNN and The Washington Post reported on Friday the Biden administration was leaning towards sending the MLRS and another system, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, known as HIMARS, as part of a larger military aid package to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian government has urged the West to provide it with more longer-range weapons in order to turn the tide in the war, now in its fourth month. US officials had said such weapons systems are actively being considered.


Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/30/biden-us-will-not-send-ukraine-rockets-that-can-reach-russia

---

This is a BIG mistake IMO. Some Biden advisers were for it, some against, sadly, this will just help monster putin destroy Ukraine.

[Ocelot II]

1. Better let him know he's doing it wrong.

[ColinC]

2. As long as Ukraine troops can reach the border, any rockets or

Weapons the US sends can reach Russia.

[caraher]

4. Yes, I was wondering about that

It's a kind of vague definition. Better to state an actual range limit along with the intention behind the criterion (e.g. not reaching Moscow)

[ColinC]

6. And a "from a certain point" might be helpful

While obviously incredibly unlikely, there is still the remote possibility of Ukraine invading Russia and using these weapons within Russia's borders.

[yaesu]

7. I figured it out on a map, those LR Rockets could reach Moscow from Ukraine's most NE border

Maybe thats another reason Pootie is trying to take over that area.

[yaesu]

5. yep, maybe they are playing a little give and take with the russian asshole. hoping pootie will

allow grain shipments which he seems to be doing with Turkeys help as reported today.

[paleotn]

21. Exactly. It's a bullshit argument.

Not happy. Biden needs to stop listening to the pants wetters in State, DoD or wherever such stupid arguments are coming from. We're leaving the Ukrainian military hanging out to dry because SOME people are afraid of what the Russians might think or do.
Know what they're going to do? Not a goddamn thing they're not ALREADY doing.

[getagrip_already]

42. As kos said, a hand grenade can reach russia....

But this is more about click bait headlines than actual policy.

The launchers are still going to ukr. What is in question is which missiles they will use.

The longest range, most accurate missiles could hit the kremlin with little trouble. That is not what the world needs.

Those are the missiles biden was referring to.

Ukr will get launchers and missiles. They will be substantial assets. But they won't the ones that can fly into putins office window.

[mahina]

55. Right?

This is just a semaphore to maintain that we are only defending Ukraine, not doing any offensive support.

Whatever he needs to say, ok. But is there really anyone who can’t see that Russia took our presidency in 2016?

[Eyeball_Kid]

3. The more UKR advances eastward, the closer they get to Russia,

and the easier it gets to focus on supply lines inside Russia. What's Biden to do if UKR's army brings up artillery close to the Russian border? Give them potato cannons?

[Deminpenn]

8. Ukraine can use its own artillery in that scenario

nt

[Igel]

10. They're trying to limit Ukraine's goals by

limiting capabilities.

Do that right, and you can determine the outcome without ever saying that you insist Ukraine alter its goals.

"Hey, Zelens'kyy, it was up to you. *You* decided to settle on the current line of contact in exchange for an interim peace deal. It wasn't our decision. We just stopped shipping you weapons and so Putin's boys got to the point he said he needed to reach, and then provided defensive weapons so that he'd have trouble going any further. Not that we determined the outcome. Even though we're really quite proud to have determined the outcome. Try to quote us, and we'll deny it."

Worked last time. Is that what Biden's doing? I think it's what Macron and Schoelz want. I think Biden's thinking that Ukraine is an issue that can easily hurt (D) in the fall but would have trouble helping (D) in the fall. Then the issue becomes, Keep the appearance of NATO unity and screw over Ukraine in a politically acceptable way or go it more alone in helping Ukraine while pissing off the weakest links?

[llashram]

9. I don't want a World War

but I don't agree with this decision. Putin has started WW3 and slaughtered countless thousands of innocent men, women and children in proof. The total war Putin is waging is genocide. So I hope the President has a backup plan to help Ukraine maintain its autonomy as a sovereign country...

[yaesu]

12. I think the West is trying to contain pootie, work him a little, limit his invasion as much as

possible while keeping him enough in the loop to persuade him to ship grain, evacuate citizens safely, ect... Its a very thin line to walk & in that respect I can understand this decision but nothing else about it makes sense.

[onetexan]

29. I trust Biden made the right decision

[womanofthehills]

56. I also think Biden is right

Nuclear weapons anyone?

[onetexan]

58. Aha, apparently he's moving forward with sending longer range systems

"Biden administration to send longer-range rocket system to Ukraine as part of new aid package"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-administration-to-send-longer-range-rocket-system-to-ukraine-as-part-of-new-aid-package/ar-AAXWBim?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=efe1e0ec04a14ffeb85c68bbfcd36035

As i've mentioned, Biden has a plan, and a damn good one. Speak softly & carry a big stick

[Evolve Dammit]

36. x 1000! And Russia should be very concerned about Ukraine's success going forward. PS. F Russia

[CanonRay]

11. A hand grenade can reach Russia if you get close enough

[Mysterian]

13. I'm disappointed

This is a wrong decision.

[Lonestarblue]

14. My thoughts, too.

Putin is at his weakest now, both in world opinion, in some of his own citizens refusing to serve in the army, and in military losses. Now is the time for the US and Western leaders to share most conventional weapons with Ukraine to help them defeat Russia. Allowing Russia to win means giving up at least the eastern part of Ukraine and most likely the entire southern coast along with Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea. Once Putin controls all the shipping, Ukraine is history.

[blue-wave]

15. "Putin is at his weakest now"

Yes, now is the time to strike. If Ukraine is not able to go on the offensive within a few weeks, the opportunity will likely be lost. And Pooty will continue to take bits of Ukrainian geography until he's at the doorstep of Kyiv again.

Ukraine needs a superior quantity of artillery weapons. If we don't want to send them artillery that has range of 200-300 miles, then send what we are willing in overwhelming numbers. Turn the situation around and pound the hell out of the Russians back to the Russian border.

[Roy Rolling]

16. Of course he will say that

The truth is the first casualty of war. Who knows what Biden will do? An unpredictable but sane leader is to be feared more than an unpredictable nutjob like TFG.

Biden is playing the media perfectly. 😜

[oldsoftie]

17. I hope you're right but they certainly haven't been good at keeping secrets.

UKR needs the ability to reach Russian supply lines & staging areas.

[Roy Rolling]

19. You are right

I don’t know what’s gonna happen based on what they say. That’s the fog of war.

All I can do is root for the home team, I know nothing about the team manager’s strategy. All I know is a good leader is eager to share what is true and what is false depending on the circumstances.

[JohnSJ]

31. Not if it hurts the the strategy, and divides NATO. Why tell Russia what kind of weapons you will

send to Ukraine

One the the stupidest We did it s say our intelligence is what sunk the Russian ship

[JohnSJ]

20. I suspect you are right. Why would he tell the illustrious press. In addition, what some seem

to forget, Biden needs to keep NATO United

[paleotn]

23. Lets hope he told the Ukrainians that.....

And they're not being "played" as well. My fear is he's taking council from the weak and the cowardly. What's Putin going to do in retaliation? Bomb the shit out of Ukraine? He has little combat power remaining to do much else anywhere. Nukes are an empty threat. Empty almost to the point of being an absolute vacuum.

[Roy Rolling]

57. Today's update

Biden will send rockets, Ukraine promises not to aim them at Russia.

Now what the f are we supposed to believe? 🤣

Mission accomplished, CiC Joe.

[paleotn]

60. Good. The short to medium range ATACMS....I hope.

Their no greater threat to Russian territory than the old Soviet systems Ukraine possessed at the outset. These just maintain that capability and improve on it. Ukrainians need the ability to hit C&C and supply areas well inside Russian territory if we want them to stand a good chance of winning.

[harumph]

18. maybe they're programmable and can

be set to exclude russian gps coordinates?

[paleotn]

22. Goddamn it, Joe.

[getagrip_already]

43. Stop reading click bait headlines....

Read the in depth articles.

Ukr will still get launchers and missiles. They just won't get the long range highly accurate missiles that can reach Moscow.

In the theatre of operations, they will be highly effective.

If you want to get frustrated t Ed, get frustrated at the media for not explaining it in the headline.

Something like "UKR to get launchers and missiles", followed by an explanation of which they will and won't get.

[paleotn]

47. Umm, I did.

They won't get the M270 MLRS or the HIMARS outfitted with the ATACMS missile. ATACMS is still a tactical system and couldn't reach Moscow from any point in Ukraine given its max range of up to 300km. They'll only get the M26 unguided or possibly M30 guided rockets. Both are not nearly as accurate or as effective as ATACMS. So my comment stands, thank you very goddamn much.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

24. Much ado about nothing. The issue is about which rockets can go with the systems. nt

[yaesu]

26. Each rocket comes with its own firing system, it not a one size fits all launch system. nt

[Cognitive_Resonance]

28. Not sending the ATACMS rockets (300km range) with the systems, only shorter range. That's all. nt

[yaesu]

30. Before sending any new system they will need to properly train those using it so that will take some

time also. I believe the long range rockets Biden is talking about has a little over 600km range which could reach Moscow from NE Ukraine border.

[XorXor]

39. Any idea which rockets he might be referring to?

Maybe tomahawk cruise missiles or the JASSM? I haven't seen much talk about giving those to Ukraine, though.

[paleotn]

50. Absolutely NOT....

ATACMS range is between 200 and 300km MAX. Moscow is well out of range from ANY point in Ukraine. "Hitting Moscow" is a bullshit argument.

[paleotn]

48. ATACMS is a far better missile than the M26 or M30

Far more accurate. Again, we're giving them just enough support to keep their chins above water, but not enough to allow them to actually...I don't know....fucking WIN perhaps?

[getagrip_already]

44. Not true...

The launchers can can handle multiple missile types. Each has a specific range and accuracy.

But the launchers themselves can fire any of them depending on configuration.

So we are talking about missiles. The launchers are going.

[XorXor]

25. There comes a point where we need to ask ourselves if we want Ukraine to win this

or if we just want to draw out the war as long as possible to bleed Russia (and Ukraine by extension) Moves like this, or rather the lack of moves like this, has me thinking that some may be pushing for the latter.

Give them the MRLS (including ATACMS), give them any working retired M1 Abrams and even M60s, give them patriot missiles systems, Give them NSM and harpoon missiles, give them F-16s, etc... Yes, they have to be trained on them, but if they started training 3 months ago then they'd be 3 months into training right now.

[Hekate]

34. Good grief, XorXor

[XorXor]

38. I'm open to hearing disagreements with my thoughts.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this so I understand other perspectives that I might not be considering, or even facts and/or assumptions I am making that are incorrect.

[paleotn]

51. They make a good argument....

Granted, we're not giving Ukraine castoff Abrams, but seriously....are we doing just enough to keep their chin above water, but not enough to actually rescue them?

Sorry, but I don't do lock step cults of personality. If Biden is fucking this up, I'm going to say so and don't give two shits what anyone thinks of that. Not saying he is at this point, but I'm beginning to wonder.

[Hekate]

52. Good to know you think those of us who trust the man who pulled NATO back together...

…are participating in a “lock step cult of personality.” I’ll keep that in mind

[paleotn]

53. How about this....

We may like certain politicians, which is all well and good, but lets also agree that they're human and can and do make mistakes. Otherwise, we begin to sound rather maga like. Personally, I leave the demigod worship to the Trump followers. But, hey, that's just me.

[Hekate]

54. Good to know you amended it to "demigod status." I'll remember that, too

It is a far cry from trusting someone’s judgment and character for long enough to see results than it is from thinking they are a god or demigod. I leave that kind of thing to Republicans — though in elections past we saw some if it here regarding certain candidates.

NATO was coming apart and didn’t trust us after Trump. The EU didn’t trust us after Trump. Just reaffirming those alliances was a BFD — and that’s on Joe. The US is not the only nation providing assistance to Ukraine — and that’s on Joe. The US is not the only nation cranking down on sanctions against Russia — and that’s on Joe.

It is very hard witnessing a nation being reduced to rubble — but unless you’d like to make Putin’s dreams come true and have us help set off WW III, maybe you should wait to see what Joe does next.

That’s all I’m saying. But it does sound so lockstep cultish when I talk about my demigod that way, doesn’t it?

[anamnua]

27. I think Biden has learned to play Putin at his own game.

Categorically deny you are going to do something and then just go ahead and do it.

[Hekate]

33. Is that so, 2live is 2fly? Dems including Biden are gutless & chickenshit?

Nice way to introduce yourself at a Democratic site.

[towerbum]

35. YOU can bomb the shit out of me , but I can't bomb you !

now we have a damn police action !

[EndlessWire]

37. That's what I don't understand.

I don't feel like protecting Putin and Russia, when he is bombing Ukrainian cities to the ground. Who made up the rule that Russian infrastructure can't be reduced to rubble as well?

Putin is going to reduce those two cities he is currently attacking, and then move on to Odesa. I don't think we should police the Ukrainians by restricting the assets we are supplying. We will wake up with the entire Black Sea seaboard under Russian control. I don't like that idea; we should help Ukraine to win the war, period.

[867-5309.]

59. Much of Ukraine could get reduced to rubble

If Moscow were struck. NATO countries and the US wouldn't be out of the question as targets. It wouldn't just risk a huge escalation, it would cause one.

[EndlessWire]

61. Okay, I get that,

it's very much one sided. Russia is allowed to bomb Ukraine to the ground, anywhere it wants. Ukraine is constrained to fight within its borders. If Russia, being the stupid idiot that Putin is, chooses to retaliate by bombing more Ukraine, well, he's already doing that. Here's the thing: he plans to take the seaboard. Once he does that, Ukraine is cooked.

I understand completely the logistics that no, we don't want to escalate the war, despite the ruthlessness of Russia and its war machine. But, neither do we want to lose. Can we afford to lose? If Russia were foolhardy enough to start up with us, they would definitely kiss their country goodbye. If they don't realize this, somebody better explain it to them.

I would rather see Ukraine eliminate the missiles being launched from the Black Sea. This would help save Odesa. I am not particularly thrilled with the idea of a direct Moscow hit, although there are targets farther inland that would be more beneficial.

But, despite the fact that Ukrainian civilians are being slaughtered, I still favor a well-thought out defensive plan that might include some offensive retaking of territory (think Crimea.) Losing Crimea would be sufficient punishment for Russia, because they are only an occupying force despite their grandiose pronouncement of annexation to all that territory, Crimea, Donbas, and soon to be Odesa and those other cities.

If this pisses Russia off, so be it. Once they are entrenched in these areas, they will eventually move on to probably Moldova. They are no better than Nazis themselves, and they should have been kicked out of the UN.

There doesn't seem to be any more attempts at diplomacy. This is why someone needs to get Russia's attention. They simply can't be allowed to annex Ukrainian territory without pushback. That is why superior ordinance systems are needed; in particular, they need something to work in the Black Sea if they want to save Odesa from Russia's plan to bomb it to smithereens. How do I know? Well, look what they have done everywhere else.

[867-5309.]

62. The bombing has been horrific

I get that. And it sucks that Ukraine can't strike Russian territory. But Russia could be doing much, much more in terms of bombing.

As I said, striking Russia itself would be a huge escalation. They would likely respond with a strike on a NATO country or a tactical nuke against Ukraine.

We are superior militarily, but if you're suggesting we could then join in some type of air assault, Russia would return the favor. MAD exists.

This whole thing is really terrifying.

[EndlessWire]

63. No, I'm not saying that.

I think we have made it clear that we are not participating in a no-fly zone. We have provided weapons that Ukraine did not have, and they have stepped up to the plate. I see now that we are giving some kind of long-range weapon, as long as they promise not to use it in its greatest capacity.

No one ever wanted to invade Russia. Russia made up a pretext for invading Ukraine, as we all know. Putin simply wants that territory, and he is trying to take it.

Now, they are threatening Poland, because the effectiveness of threatening nukes has worn off, and they need something else to threaten with and to distract from what they are doing. That's laughable, because we have built up our troops in that country, and because it is a NATO country. But, Russia is not winning the PR war.

I am sorry as hell that Russia started this war. We can't let Russia control the Black Sea.

As far as Russia striking the US or NATO, it would be a tragedy, but we would retaliate and Russia would be no more. It is as if Russia doesn't consider the fact that it would also be damaged.

Russians better wake up. Putin is threatening the peace and integrity of the world, all in their name. To be Russian is to be a pariah, courtesy of Putin's aggression. People are people everywhere, and I doubt very much that the average Russian citizen thinks it's a swell idea to just invade and kill your neighbor.

I want to see Crimea retaken. No, I don't see how that can happen, but if it did, it would be appropriate punishment. And, they don't own it, anyway.

We didn't start this war. The UN and the nations there tried repeatedly to persuade Russia to go home. Talk doesn't cut it with Russia. All those diplomats trekking to Moscow were a waste of time. Bloody Putin's nose, and then, maybe the people in Russia will do something about the war. But, the only way we can do that is through Ukraine's resistance, and we have tied one of its hands behind its back.

So, I agree with you. MAD. But, the push in the East is the time to push back hard with increased resistance, not less. And, the effort should be to protect the South, Odesa, and that part of Moldova that is vulnerable. Keeping Moldova out of the war should be the real objective of providing long-range rocketry to Ukraine. That is the real threat.

[Polybius]

40. Good

Biden knows what he's doing, and everything he does is for a reason. I trust him.

[jmowreader]

41. MLRS and HIMARS are basically the same system

Both of them are multiple rocket launchers. These fire from a box called a canister containing either six M26 rockets or one M39 Army Tactical Missile System guided missile - the Ukrainians are not going to get any ATACMS equipment, just the M26 and its launch canisters. The canister sits on a pedestal that allows the system to aim the rockets before firing them. You can find videos on YouTube of canisters being installed on the MLRS; they use a crane to do it. One M26 rocket weighs over 600 pounds and the canister holds six, and then the weight of the canister has to be added in...

The differences:

The M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System is a modified M2 Bradley with a pedestal that holds two canisters.
The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System is a five-ton truck that carries one canister.

I would have been MUCH happier if they would have sent Course Correcting Fuzes for 155mm howitzer rounds. (Before you ask: "fuze" is spelled correctly. This is to differentiate it from, say, an electrical fuse. Fuzes are used to set off explosives.) The CCF can reliably put a shell to within 50 meters of your aiming point at 14 kilometers range. MLRS rockets aren't guided at all, and if the wind catches one halfway through its flight you have no idea where the round is going to go.

[ripcord]

45. Wouldn't want Ukraine to go on the attack now would we?

It might upset Russia.

[paleotn]

49. Bingo!!!!

Just keep them from drowning. Rescue? Oh, we can't do that.

[Calista241]

46. This is a crazy line in the sand for Biden, IMO.

All the rockets, and even other artillery would go into Russia if the weapon systems were close enough to the border.

I understand Biden not wanting the perception of the Ukrainians shelling Russian cities with American weapons, but that can be communicated verbally, with the appropriate policies implemented by the UA to guarantee future delivery of weapons.